|I believe the original thread was done with, and i don't think the PNAC influence on the Bush administration is too far off, let's continue here.|
PNAC as such can hold whatever views they hold. PNAC is not running the administration, no lobby group is. The Bush administration and PNAC, does however seem inseparable, and this is where i think it gets interesting. PNAC shows a philosohy, the administration shows actions. The men in charge of the administration are to an overwhelming extend the men behind PNAC. I think it fair to see the actions of the administration, in comparison to the philosophy held by the men behind those actions, the men behind PNAC.
On protecting american commercial interests by the use of power; "Where does it say this? Is this explicit, implied or some kind of grey area?"
No it doesn't say explicitly, and that's the problem, no one seems to say why we had to invade Iraq. We were asked to believe one motive, when it turned out that it was a well planned lie (downing street memo and facts), we were asked to believe something else. If we should choose between having blind faith in someone known not to tell the truth, and trusting reason, i chose to trust reason. Iraq was invaded, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs or terror - at least i have been introduced to no proof suggesting that it had - the only shared interest between Iraq and America, to my knowledge, is oil. When the PNAC members of the bush administration hold that america should lead the world, and american interests should be protected by use of military power - which it does say - then i begin to see reason. Explicit, implied or other grey area... the only thing explicit are the pictures of war, thousands of dead civilians, all we can do is use the grey area between our ears to combine facts to reason, it's really all we have been given, so yes, very much an implied tangible truth, do you have something more reasonable?
"Preemptive is not mentioned in the statement anywhere. I aree that support from the world community can be useful, but is by no means a requirement for taking action when necessary."
- no, preemptive is not mentioned, it is merely done. I don't know if action speaks louder than words, but action is. For someone to force 'democratisation' by disregarding democracy i find interesting.
"So are you saying that protecting interests with force for any reason is wrong? I assume you are not (I doubt you are a pacifist), so this statement is already incorrect on its face. It depends on context as to why the force is being used."
I am saying that protecting interests with force, should be used in defense of interests threatened by force - protecting by force, that which has not been threatened by force is an act of aggression.
"I presume you feel Iraq didn't justify force, but I disagree because protecting US interests at the expense of a country run by a totalitarian dictator is a non-issue. He exerts power by force and terror only, thereby he forfeits his rights to non-initiation of force."
- Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, killing many of his own people, that he is gone i think we all welcome as good, but removing him by an act of aggression killing more innocent iraqi civilians than he ever did, could raise questions as to who is the bad guy. If for the sake of it we play that self-denial shouldn't equal self-deceit, that altruism was possible, and that from the goodness of his heart some leader would want to engage in democratisation of those that held other forms of government... then where do you want to go today? to the absolute monarchies of Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Nepal, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland or Tonga or why not the theocracies of Iran or the Vatican City State. We could also take on all the one-party and no-party states of People's Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Laos, Libya, Syria, Turkmenistan and Vietnam not to mention the military junta in Myanmar/burma but why stop there? Afghanistan is a presidential republic that didn't stop us from attacking them for training saudi arabian terrorists. If 'democratisation' of everything undemocratic by military force is the goal, nothing short of world war can be the result.
We are not selling our freedom at home
- i have been broadening the discussion too much, so im not going to comment too deeply on these issues of secondary connection to the topic, except to say that, yes, many places have less liberties, i am not trying to say that america is bad, i am only saying that i find it sad that the current administration is trying very hard to limit those liberties in the name of security, as the patriot act clearly shows. Security costs freedom, and that is the only black and white there is about it, i can't give a good alternative, i can't say where to draw the line, only a non-constructive comment that i would prefer less security and more freedom.
There is nothing "Sovereign" about a state that exists through force and terror of its population for a ruling elite!
Most countries have evolved through thousands of years. The familiy with it's authoritarian patriarch accepting to be part of the tribe with it's authoritarian chief accepting or being forced into being part of the geographical area with its authoritarian monach or lord, a dynamic evolved where members of the group had powers ie military services to offer the lord in exchange for land, creating new authoritarian leaders and when no more land could be given a monetary system evolved creating new authoritarian groups... any type of government is the type that have suited the given area at the time of its rule. The type of government we have today will itself evolve to something else over time, that does not make one type correct, and free to do with the other types as they please in the name of anything but a wish to be the authoritarian power of the day.
Sprinkle it with punctuation marks, and it might make sense.